When we are working in a group and there is a common purpose our activity in that group has many relevant aspects. Beyond what we give, we get a set of stimuli and information that are precious to the final result.

Observing what people do and what not do, listening to what they not say and what they say we build an environment that motivates us or not for the process of collaboration.

In fact, there’s nothing simple about the determination of who observes or how to do useful inferences that suggest a direction when our purpose is to create a solution or find a business model.

Divergent thinking or generating many ideas that are new compared to previous solutions and the depth and richness with which each idea is explored are critical in the face of possible diversity of participants

In my last experience in #UnBar it was interesting to observe the behavior of the group in front of a work proposal identified with the construction of a business model in a context of “society 2.0″.

In the group, later a team, was composed of elements from various geographical origins (Colombia, Spain, Portugal, United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands) and with different professional backgrounds, overcome some barriers (linguistic constraint) and achieved amazing results with divergent thinking.

When the convergent thinking came on the scene to find a single high-quality output, was curious to note that the experiences of participants act as barriers to their implementation, not because the path pointed to by other was unacceptable, but because it lacked docking in the frame that the occupation of each one produced.

On the other hand, how these views were defended represents well the motivation present on all members.

And how team members found energy to developing the project?

I think what was manifest, and it is interesting to note that, was an individual growth over work that boosted the result of the team.

There was recognition and reward, without use of constraints and even when the disagreement arose also emerges humility and sense making. There was not of course a linear process but how spaces were worked allowed a interactive learning that allowed telling a story end with details of lots of reality.

The motivation to collaborate was a positive function of perceived value for each member in the draft who embraced. Each one of the key factors highlighted at the beginning for the approach to “Society 2.0″ has acted as a lever for collaboration and as glue for cohesion pointing to background deeper differences compared to other aspects such as” paths to profit in business “

What other factors have contributed to a good result in those nearly five hours?

This was one thing I realized while working as a group member! You might want to ask more questions, so feel free!